zalt
8th Jul 2011, 00:24
Helicopter Safety Supervisor Files Whistleblower Charge Against Sikorsky Global Helicopters (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8608516.htm)
Quality Assurance Supervisor’s Complaint Alleges Sikorsky Fired Him for Reporting Violations of FAA Regulations in Repair of Helicopter Components
On June 28, 2011, David Simmons, a former Quality Assurance Supervisor for Sikorsky Global Helicopters (“SGH”), filed a whistleblower-retaliation charge against SGH, alleging that the company terminated him for complaining about extensive flight-safety issues and noncompliance with Federal Aviation Regulations at SGH’s Keystone Engine Services (“KES”) facility in Coatesville, PA. Simmons filed his complaint with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which is responsible for enforcing federal laws that protect whistleblowers in the aviation industry, including the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”). (OSHA Ref. No. 3-6540-11-042).
On January 18, 2011, Simmons alleges in the complaint, he began an internal audit of KES operations and discovered evidence of systemic noncompliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. According to the complaint, he initially found more than 50 such violations in a review of just 25 work orders for repairs of helicopter parts. These parts were used in helicopters by public air carriers such as those that conduct tours and provide medical evacuation services. Simmons was concerned that the failure to comply with the aviation regulations posed serious flight-safety risks for the customers of SGH and KES and the public. These fears were heightened, his complaint alleges, when a further review identified more than 300 suspect parts that had not been maintained in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulations.
Simmons alerted his superiors at SGH to his findings, and recommended a broader audit and self-reporting to the customers of SGH and KES and to the FAA. According to Simmons’s complaint, SGH reported only a handful of violations to the FAA and failed to disclose the systemic nature of the problems. Simmons says his supervisors also dismissed his suggestion that they contact customers who had received parts that were not airworthy.
According to Simmons’s complaint, SGH and its affiliates retaliated against him for reporting and opposing noncompliance with flight-safety regulations – first by suspending him for five days, then by removing many of his quality-assurance responsibilities, and eventually by firing him without warning on March 31, 2011. Simmons has asked OSHA to investigate his firing and issue an order awarding an appropriate remedy, which may include reinstatement and monetary damages.
Simmons’s attorney, David J. Marshall of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks, says he is confident that Simmons will prevail before OSHA. “Mr. Simmons risked his job to oppose practices that violated FAA regulations,” Marshall said. “He showed a deep commitment to the well-being of those who rely on the safety of helicopters for everything from recreation to medical evacuation. Ultimately, that commitment cost him his livelihood.” Marshall added that Simmons’s firing is “exactly the kind of retaliation that the whistleblower provision of AIR21 is designed to prevent.”
Not the first time:
Sikorsky battling major quality control problems (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/254751-sikorsky-battling-major-quality-control-problems.html)
and
Appeals Court Lets Sikorsky, Pratt Keep Quality-Control Records Secret - Hartford Courant (http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-25/business/hc-sikorsky-pratt-lawsuits.artmar25_1_sikorsky-president-jeff-pino-defense-contract-management-agency-pratt-whitney)
Appeals Court Lets Sikorsky, Pratt Keep Quality-Control Records Secret
March 25, 2010|By ERIC GERSHON, The Hartford Courant
Sikorsky Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney this week won a big round in their yearslong fight to keep the Defense Department from releasing reports about the companies' quality-control practices.
The companies, divisions of United Technologies Corp., sued the government in 2005 in an attempt to keep the documents under wraps after Connecticut news reporters requested copies of them. A lower federal court dismissed those lawsuits in 2008 and on Tuesday, a federal appeals court reversed those dismissals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in its opinion that the government failed to sufficiently explain why releasing the documents would not cause the companies "substantial competitive harm."
A provision of the federal Freedom of Information Act exempts information provided to the government if it is likely to "cause substantial harm to the competitive position" of the person or company providing it. The companies asserted that the reports' release would give their competitors valuable information.
The Defense Contract Management Agency had agreed to provide documents pertaining to Sikorsky's production of Black Hawk helicopters and to Pratt's Middletown jet engine factory, in response to 2004 requests from reporters at New Haven's WTNH-TV and The Courant.
The agency — which monitors defense contractors and in recent years has feuded with Sikorsky — concluded that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act forbade it.
In separate statements Wednesday, Sikorsky and Pratt reasserted that the information in the reports is confidential and sensitive and should not be made public.
"We opposed the production of documents related to our manufacturing and quality processes because the information is both proprietary and competitively sensitive," Pratt said.
The appeals court ruling appears to leave open the possibility that the documents could come to light: The court ordered the case sent back to the Defense Department, which may refine its argument for disclosing the documents, "if it can."
It is unclear whether the agency will pursue the case further. The commander of the Defense Contract Management Agency office at Sikorsky's Stratford headquarters referred inquiries Wednesday to an agency spokeswoman in Boston; she did not respond to requests for comment.
Tensions between DCMA and Sikorsky burst into the open in 2006, when a letter from the agency's commander to Sikorsky President Jeff Pino surfaced. In it, the commander, who has since been replaced, declared the company's oversight of U.S. military helicopter production to be "out of control" and its errors "mounting in seriousness."
Quality Assurance Supervisor’s Complaint Alleges Sikorsky Fired Him for Reporting Violations of FAA Regulations in Repair of Helicopter Components
On June 28, 2011, David Simmons, a former Quality Assurance Supervisor for Sikorsky Global Helicopters (“SGH”), filed a whistleblower-retaliation charge against SGH, alleging that the company terminated him for complaining about extensive flight-safety issues and noncompliance with Federal Aviation Regulations at SGH’s Keystone Engine Services (“KES”) facility in Coatesville, PA. Simmons filed his complaint with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which is responsible for enforcing federal laws that protect whistleblowers in the aviation industry, including the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”). (OSHA Ref. No. 3-6540-11-042).
On January 18, 2011, Simmons alleges in the complaint, he began an internal audit of KES operations and discovered evidence of systemic noncompliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. According to the complaint, he initially found more than 50 such violations in a review of just 25 work orders for repairs of helicopter parts. These parts were used in helicopters by public air carriers such as those that conduct tours and provide medical evacuation services. Simmons was concerned that the failure to comply with the aviation regulations posed serious flight-safety risks for the customers of SGH and KES and the public. These fears were heightened, his complaint alleges, when a further review identified more than 300 suspect parts that had not been maintained in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulations.
Simmons alerted his superiors at SGH to his findings, and recommended a broader audit and self-reporting to the customers of SGH and KES and to the FAA. According to Simmons’s complaint, SGH reported only a handful of violations to the FAA and failed to disclose the systemic nature of the problems. Simmons says his supervisors also dismissed his suggestion that they contact customers who had received parts that were not airworthy.
According to Simmons’s complaint, SGH and its affiliates retaliated against him for reporting and opposing noncompliance with flight-safety regulations – first by suspending him for five days, then by removing many of his quality-assurance responsibilities, and eventually by firing him without warning on March 31, 2011. Simmons has asked OSHA to investigate his firing and issue an order awarding an appropriate remedy, which may include reinstatement and monetary damages.
Simmons’s attorney, David J. Marshall of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks, says he is confident that Simmons will prevail before OSHA. “Mr. Simmons risked his job to oppose practices that violated FAA regulations,” Marshall said. “He showed a deep commitment to the well-being of those who rely on the safety of helicopters for everything from recreation to medical evacuation. Ultimately, that commitment cost him his livelihood.” Marshall added that Simmons’s firing is “exactly the kind of retaliation that the whistleblower provision of AIR21 is designed to prevent.”
Not the first time:
Sikorsky battling major quality control problems (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/254751-sikorsky-battling-major-quality-control-problems.html)
and
Appeals Court Lets Sikorsky, Pratt Keep Quality-Control Records Secret - Hartford Courant (http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-25/business/hc-sikorsky-pratt-lawsuits.artmar25_1_sikorsky-president-jeff-pino-defense-contract-management-agency-pratt-whitney)
Appeals Court Lets Sikorsky, Pratt Keep Quality-Control Records Secret
March 25, 2010|By ERIC GERSHON, The Hartford Courant
Sikorsky Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney this week won a big round in their yearslong fight to keep the Defense Department from releasing reports about the companies' quality-control practices.
The companies, divisions of United Technologies Corp., sued the government in 2005 in an attempt to keep the documents under wraps after Connecticut news reporters requested copies of them. A lower federal court dismissed those lawsuits in 2008 and on Tuesday, a federal appeals court reversed those dismissals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in its opinion that the government failed to sufficiently explain why releasing the documents would not cause the companies "substantial competitive harm."
A provision of the federal Freedom of Information Act exempts information provided to the government if it is likely to "cause substantial harm to the competitive position" of the person or company providing it. The companies asserted that the reports' release would give their competitors valuable information.
The Defense Contract Management Agency had agreed to provide documents pertaining to Sikorsky's production of Black Hawk helicopters and to Pratt's Middletown jet engine factory, in response to 2004 requests from reporters at New Haven's WTNH-TV and The Courant.
The agency — which monitors defense contractors and in recent years has feuded with Sikorsky — concluded that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act forbade it.
In separate statements Wednesday, Sikorsky and Pratt reasserted that the information in the reports is confidential and sensitive and should not be made public.
"We opposed the production of documents related to our manufacturing and quality processes because the information is both proprietary and competitively sensitive," Pratt said.
The appeals court ruling appears to leave open the possibility that the documents could come to light: The court ordered the case sent back to the Defense Department, which may refine its argument for disclosing the documents, "if it can."
It is unclear whether the agency will pursue the case further. The commander of the Defense Contract Management Agency office at Sikorsky's Stratford headquarters referred inquiries Wednesday to an agency spokeswoman in Boston; she did not respond to requests for comment.
Tensions between DCMA and Sikorsky burst into the open in 2006, when a letter from the agency's commander to Sikorsky President Jeff Pino surfaced. In it, the commander, who has since been replaced, declared the company's oversight of U.S. military helicopter production to be "out of control" and its errors "mounting in seriousness."